29th August 2021
A recent post on this blog set out why one should be sceptical of ministerial resignations – at least as a form of practical political accountability.
Many resignations – and sackings – are political theatre, and they are not instances of political accountability but substitutes for it.
The post averred that resignations still have their place, but that – all other things being equal – such resignations are not really about accountability.
No account ends up being given of how things went wrong, and why.
Instead there is a political CTL+X or CTL+Z and the political typing goes on as before.
*
That said, one famous ministerial resignation was that of Lord Carrington in 1982.
In his letter of resignation, he stated:
‘The Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands has led to strong criticism in Parliament and the press of the Government’s policy. In my view much of the criticism is unfounded, but I have been responsible for the conduct of the policy.
‘I think it right that I resign.
‘As you know, I have given long and careful thought to this. I warmly appreciate the kindness and support which you showed me on Saturday. But the fact remains that the invasion of the Falkland Islands has been a humiliating affront to this country.’
In his memoirs he stated:
‘The nation feels that there has been a disgrace. Someone must have been to blame. The disgrace must be purged. The person to purge it should be the minister in charge. That was me.’
He is generally regarded as having resigned for not having anticipated the Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands.
Few historians now blame Carrington – and indeed the minister more responsible for signalling to Argentina that the United Kingdom may have a weak resolve to defending the Falkland Islands was the defence secretary, who stayed in his job.
*
Another resignation, though now less famous, was that of Estelle Morris as education secretary in 2002 – and it one of the most remarkable and refreshing political resignations of modern times.
Her reasoning was startlingly frank:
‘I’m good at dealing with the issues and in communicating to the teaching profession. I am less good at strategic management of a huge department and I am not good at dealing with the modern media. All this has meant that with some of the recent situations I have been involved in, I have not felt I have been as effective as I should be…’
She resigned because she was not in the right job, and she said so.
And good on her – and it would be better if more people with political power were so candid.
*
The current foreign secretary Dominic Raab is criticised in today’s press for failures to engage properly with the issue Afghanistan in the run up to this month’s evacuation.
this (from the Sunday Times) is completely damning for Dominic Raab pic.twitter.com/DPJnZuSv5D
— Henry Mance (@henrymance) August 29, 2021
In particular:
This is a serious charge – perhaps almost the most serious charge that could be made against a foreign secretary.
This is not just getting a foreign policy issue wrong – say, like what was alleged against Carrington – but not even engaging with it in the first place.
This is foreign policy that is not even wrong, in the words from another context of Wolfgang Pauli.
If the charge is correct then Raab cannot even give an account of what he did wrong and why made those errors, as he did not do anything.
He cannot offer any account, for there is no account to be given.
And so there cannot – literally – be accountability.
If he were to now resign in these circumstances, it should be more of an Estelle Morris resignation than a Lord Carrington resignation.
*
And just as resignations and sackings are substitutes (usually) for accountability, another things is stark.
If the newspaper report is accurate, being ‘totally focused on Brexit’ is a substitute for good policy and government.
**
Hello there – please do support this sceptical law and policy Brexit blog – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Who (old enough!) can forget the dramatic resignation of Geoffrey Howe?
I had the pleasure of being a governor of a secondary school in Birmingham that charts the rise of Estelle Morris MP up through the Ministerial ranks at the Department of Education in three plaques from Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to Minister of State and, finally, Secretary of State.
Each plaque marking a stage in the rebuilding of the school.
In a wonderful meta-upon-meta moment, this post misattributed the phrase ‘not even wrong’ to the wrong physicist
What a splendid mistake!
Sorry – I have now amended this post accordingly
Your admission of error has probably disqualified you from a position in the current cabinet.
In the clamour for resignations, I think the question of replacement is often too easy to forget. It’s not just a question of someone leaving: someone has to fill that role, and presumably you want that person to do a better job (for however you’ve decided to rate performance in that role).
To take an example, back in February, there were calls from some who wanted Hancock to resign after a court ruled the delay of the publishing of contracts was unlawful. Many of those people were also on the side of being cautious and minimising COVID cases rather than opening up. Yet it seemed to me — perhaps incorrectly — that since Hancock had been similarly on the side of caution and not opening up too fast, any replacement would be likely to be more inclined towards opening up. In other words, any replacement would likely lead to less preferable policy for (at least some of) those calling for resignation. (Naturally, there are other policies that the health secretary is involved in — but, again, there didn’t seem to be any plausible candidates that would clearly be an improvement.)
It seems to me that being focused on resignation, rather than both resignation and likely or even plausible replacements, means that a resignation you called for might lead to a medium- or long-term outcome that you’re much less happy with. Perhaps a better question than “Is minister X going to resign?” is “How are you going to put things right?” Sometimes resignation might be the right answer — as arguably was the case when Hancock actually went owing to the loss of his personal credibility with the public — but I don’t think it should be the default answer.
Interesting point. My initial reaction was given such myopia and callousness, that i would rather see anyone else but Rab there- a geaography master with foresight even. But if Rab was INSTRUCTED to concentrate on Brexit to the exclusion of all other business, then the instructor bears most responsability. … ultimately those who voted for johnson!
It was understood at the time that Lord Carrington was the wrong minister to resign over the Falklands. The Defence Secretary, John Nott, was much more directly responsible. Both offered to resign. Margaret Thatcher persuaded John Nott to stay on but Lord Carrington was determined to resign.
Estelle Morris recognised she wasn’t up to the job. Dominic Raab either doesn’t realise this or doesn’t care about his failure. Possibly both. He isn’t alone in the current cabinet in being out of his depth.
Both Carrington and Morris resigned for honourable reasons. That doesn’t happen very often as politicians invest a lot of time and effort in climbing the greasy pole to high office.
This should put the entire Cabinet on notice.
Johnson does not appoint ministers on the basis of their competence (evidently). Therefore, their lack of competence in their given tasks cannot be grounds for dismissal. Johnson does not have the political capital to take on even the least of his cabinet members, so we are stuck with this ship of fools until a political mutiny is orchestrated and Cap’n Bojo is forced to walk the plank. Sadly for the nation, the ship of fools has no crew member capable of steering the ship of state – hence the talk of Gove, Sunak or Javid as potential successors and (God help us) Jeremy Hunt trying to burnish his credentials as a serious contender to defenestrate Johnson should the 1922 committee finally discover a trace of “testicular fortitude”.
What is the aposite DAG trademark warning…
Doesn’t the PM realise his failure to sack Raab makes him look weak, complicit, approving? ‘Global Britain’ was a dynamic catchphrase but really, this Tweedledum and Tweedledee couldn’t competently manage a tuck shop. Poor us and poor Afghanistan.
Of far more importance to this PM is keeping in place a safety net of incompetents. Looking weak and complicit is a price he seems more than willing to pay.
I’m not so sure here. Carrington looks to have come from the ‘silly old buffer’ school of Ministers. Nice enough chap but out of his depth as politics became a harder trade for nasty people. Ms Morris, plainly promoted well beyond her capabilities. Did at least have the good sense to get out.
Mr Raab certainly seems a nasty man but entirely suitable for the current state of politics. Fits in well with the current crowd.
As for whether he should resign over the Afghanistan affair. Probably not. Either the UK was bounced into a rapid withdrawal without warning or we had warning. Either way I suspect the objective was to get out with minimal bloodshed and as few refugees dumped on Ms Patel’s doorstep as we could get away with. In that he has succeeded. Boris should be grateful. Ms Patel not so much.
Once the ‘plan’ was set there was no point cancelling a holiday – to do so might alert adverse parties. Or there was no plan, merely a contingency that left the withdrawal to the military. We might find out the truth one day but I think Mr Raab will have moved on by then – even to No 10.
Carrington was not a silly old buffer, quite the opposite.
As for Raab, going on holiday as the crisis developed, ignoring instructions from Johnson, avoiding people he should have been urgently seeking contact with, etc, I think resignation is definitely warranted. Johnson ought to have sacked him but he’s equally spineless.
Raab’s behaviour was criminally negligent, even allowing for the supposedly unforeseen nature of events. He has almost certainly caused avoidable loss of life.
Does his failure to sack Raab make him look weak in the eyes of the “red Wall” voters and the died in the wool Tories? These are the only ones he cares about. Perhaps the Afghanistan debacle will lose him some of the military votes, but I won’t hold my breath.
I don’t think dyed in the wool or red wall Tories care very much about perceived weakness. They like Johnson and his populist blather. Johnson remains popular despite the evidence of his poor judgement and laziness.